Quote from: Bogart on October 07, 2012, 05:31:01 AM

Quote from: niko on October 07, 2012, 04:46:51 AM

Quote from: Bogart on October 07, 2012, 04:38:22 AM

Quote from: niko on October 07, 2012, 04:32:36 AM

Quote from: thebaron on October 06, 2012, 10:41:45 PM

Pirate asks for AML info before he'll give the money up. Never gives the money up.
Nefario asks for AML info before he'll give the money up. (predictable result goes here)

Why are you stating that Nefario asks for AML info? All I've seen is the GLBSE statement posted today on their Web site saying that if you are willing them to share your email, user name, and a btc address with the issuers, you can continue your relationship with the issuers (presumably based on claim codes GLBSE will provide). That's all the information available as of today. No need to spread FUD.

Quote from: theymos on October 06, 2012, 12:29:19 AM

Quote from: Bogart on October 06, 2012, 12:27:42 AM

Quote from: theymos on October 06, 2012, 12:00:57 AM

Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info.

Identity meaning what exactly? Will my login credentials and deposit address suffice?

MtGox-style AML documents.

This contradicts what Nefario put on the home page:

Quote

Q:I'm a GLBSE user, what about my assets and my bitcoin?

You will be able to get back your bitcoin, and if you want to reveal your username, email, and a bitcoin address to accept payments with, you can continue your relationship with the issuer of any assets you hold.

If you read it carefully, it actually does not contradict. All that is said above about bitcoins on glbse.com is that we will be able to get them back. Nothing else.

What puzzles me slightly is the basis on which nefario could request personal information.

In general, UK companies are NOT required by law to obtain information identifying their customers. We can walk into a shop and buy something without ever telling our name - let alone proving our identity. And the same is true for many other services.

The largest exception to this is Regulated Financial Service Providers - they DO have a requirement to obtain proof of identity (and also various KYC/AML obligations - though most of those are not statutory in nature). But GLBSE is NOT regulated. IF nefario's argument is that GLBSE SHOULD have been regulated then asking for proof of ID now is:

a) Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
b) An admission of guilt.

On the first point, the whole issue is that we AREN'T gonna be his customers. As he isn't regulated so has no regulatory obligations he would be constrained by the Data Protection Act's requirement not to keep personal data for longer than was needed.

On the second point, not having requested our identities is pretty trivial compared to his other offences IF he is claiming he has been running a Financial service that should have been regulated but wasn't. It's like robbing a bank and handing out ear-mufflers to everyone in there as you're worried you might otherwise be breaking Health and Safety regulations if you discharge a firearm.

As far as KYC/AML obligations are concerned the primary purpose of these (in the context of AML) is to identify suspicious transactions. What suspicious transactions could he conceivably expect to uncover when the only ones which will now be carried out are him refunding our outstanding balances?

Here's the summary of what the data protection act says:

"Data protection looking after the information you hold

If you hold and process information about your clients, employees or suppliers, you are legally obliged to protect that information. Under the Data Protection Act, you must:

   only collect information that you need for a specific purpose;
   keep it secure;
   ensure it is relevant and up to date;
   only hold as much as you need, and only for as long as you need it; and
   allow the subject of the information to see it on request."

So what specific purpose does he need this information for? If he's claiming a regulatory need than how (and by whom) is he claiming GLBSE is regulated?

How long is he claiming he'd need if for?

What need does he have for it after our BTC have been returned? If none, then on what basis does he plan to continue holding that information? If he doesn't plan to keep holding that information then where is the need? Or is he planning to issue everyone with personal cheques (where he WOULD need identity information)?

What is he planning to do that causes that need now, when no such need existed for prior withdrawals?

"I'd like it to have something to hand over if I'm investigated" isn't a need - nor is it a valid reason to hold personal information under the DPA, as it isn't necessary to conduct the business we have outstanding (withdrawal of BTC).